Do you think you could deal with the emotional stress of having to kill to survive

Well, staying strictly on-topic as to whether I could deal with the emotional stress of having to make a life-taking decision, I have to answer "yes". The real crux of this question, to me, is how we define "deal with". If you mean continue to function, continue to protect yourself and your loved ones, not completely crack up and end up endlessly masturbating in a padded cell, then ....... yes. However, many people suffer profound long-lasting effects from having made such a decision, and often (IMO) those effects are not immediately realized. They might manifest themselves as self-doubt, depression, paranoia, profound desire to sleep, mania, rage, guilt, substance abuse, or a whole cornucopia of other self-destructive tendancies. I've heard it said that soliders who are in this postion eventually become desensitized to the act of killing, that some may even grow to enjoy it. I personally have never found that to be true. For me, it remains an urban legend brought about mostly by war-related movies.

I believe it forever changes a person to take another's life, even if it was a clear choice of "us or them". Even seeing such a thing has a profound effect on emergency responders, health care workers, firefighters, EMTs, Law Enforcement, etc. I think a person who can counsel themselves and can open up to others who are insightful do better with the aftermath, but I also believe that there are some who just cannot handle it on a really visceral level and it tears them apart.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by Anuubis


This is a question every person needs to ask themselves. Thank goodness I was trained to do the job. I am armed to the tooth and have trained all of my boys how to protect what is theirs with every weapon we own.

I have no problem doing what needs doing. I am prepared to survive.

I just don't buy into this theory that killing a human is always so traumatizing, most especially in self defense.

There are an average of 16,000 murders in this country every year. Those were NOT situations that demanded it (well most of the time). I seriously don't think all those killers are thinking about their victims everyday or suffering from the "emotional scars" either (except when they appear in front of the parole board). I guarantee you for every murderer there are several times as many sociopaths out there that WOULD do it for various reasons if there were no consequences, but they don't want to risk prison.

I think this whole "killing a human is soooo emotionally disturbing" speel it is a bit like the myth that "every woman who has an abortion is horribly traumatized on some level." No, they are not.



[edit on 4-8-2008 by Sonya610]

Ethics and Morals are situational and fluid. They are not the ridged lines in the sand people believe them to be.

Few people will steal until their children are starving and hear cries of hunger at night...then if the opportunity arises, that loaf of bread is going into their coat pocket.

"Holy Christians" went on murderous rampages in the middle ages, and the armed forces are comprised of individuals that sincerely believe in tenants of their religion.

rationalization is a mental tool to deal with the stress of these types of decisions. An individual will not kill because they think its a good idea, its because the alternative ( whatever that may be) is worse. Taking a life becomes justified.

If you are forced to take a life, you will. if your child is threatened, the instinct to preserve your bloodline kicks in and all bets are off, you will do what is neccesary to preserve your childs life.

No need to feel bad about it, this is the way nature has set up her playing field. There is no worse animal to be around than mother Hippo or Mother bear, they wont wait for young to be in danger, it is pre emptive attack. And Mom will insure you are dead.
Nature is not the rainbow and lollipop world people make it out to be. Usually these are city dwellers that dont live outdoors. If you see Nature in action, its Brutal. Insects lay eggs in each other bodies for young to eat the host alive when they hatch. Predators inject paralysing venom and eat prey alive, or watch a pack of wolves bring down dinner and eat...that is a sight you wont forget.

Why should people be any different...if someone threatens my family, children, friends, associates, realtor, why shouldnt they receive the courtesy of Natural law; Kill or be killed.

We are here as the result of Chaos ; stars exploding, galaxies colliding, meteors crashing and exploding and somewhere in the mix of the destruction life was born.

Wow, some great answers. Thank you.

Dan Tann, you are a sick and twisted individual

Malevolent Aliens, he probably wouldn't use any of those weapons, he'd probably cut their hearts out with a spoon.

Sleuth, i didn't ask if you would kill, i asked how would you deal with what you did.

In a survival situation, you must make up your mind in advance if you intend to be predator or prey. All life is a race, a hide, or a fight. In a survival or state of anarchy, you are predator or prey. And that, my friend, is a conscious decision you already thought about and made up your mind about.

You don't just one day say, "hell, I'll kill anyone that tries anything with me!" You must come to terms with your situation of the moment, and then decide up front what your survival attitude will be. Almost every week, cops are killed in the line of duty. Usually because they misread the actions or threat of those around them. See what I mean? Had he known this person was either unstable or wanted him dead, his approach would have been vaastly different. What mindset is required for what tactical situation?

Warfare provides, or should provide, a constant state of threat. To do well, you must suspect everyone you meet at all times, from all directions. You should be polite, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet. And if in the heat of battle an innocent falls, it's not your fault. It's combat, and in combat dookey happens. You never forget those you kill. Never. You don't have to regret it, but you'll never forget it, and often will relive that exact same experience (each one of them) hundreds of times as the years go on.

My best advice is to kill who you should, but don't delay, don't look hard at what you did, keep your eyes moving, never letting that "photograph" burn into your memory. You don't memorize it, you can't be haunted by it.

any guys are so pumped up with adrenaline and another few hundred chemicals the body dumps into the bloodstream to enable the fight, and as soon as the immediate threat is over, the drain is unbelievable. And then you start remembering. Always "hit replay" to learn from, and go to the next movement sequence.

Unless you've actually done it, there's no telling what you'll do, how you'll respond, or how successful you'll be. All the talk about "Well I know for damned sure that I'd . . ." That's all puff. Talking and doing are two different things. Unbelievably, it's usually the non-assuming, agreeable, soft-spoken, quiet guy that when it comes time for killing is an absolute chain saw. And those who were so certain? Couldn't find 'em.

reply to post by dooper
Some very good points, indeed.
Now if people will only pay attention to all them, it'll help them in the long run.

Originally posted by dooperMy best advice is to kill who you should, but don't delay, don't look hard at what you did, keep your eyes moving, never letting that "photograph" burn into your memory. You don't memorize it, you can't be haunted by it.

Yeah I absolutely agree with that. Don't look at their face or eyes in particular. The eyes change instantly, and especially in humans it usually isn't pretty.

I'm curious. Would you be willing to tell me why you were asking this question?

Most of our soldiers that come back with problems is because there is no real decompression time. They want to get back home as quick as they can, and they don't realize the threat that poses to both them and even their families.

An intuitive, knowing commander would take his unit out far from any point of any other inhabitants, and would take away all cell phones, radios, and reading material.

This would enable a whole lot of quiet time where each man would be forced to face what he's just experienced, sort out his feelings, straighten up the tangled chaos that over the past few months has piled up and not been dealt with. They should be encouraged to talk.

t's real easy to be alone. Even in a crowd.

Two weeks. Nothing to do but talk, eat, relax, think, reflect, and assimilate.

Then, when the men get home, they benefit, and their families benefit.

And over time, these events will gradually shift toward the back of the memory, as other memories take their place. But it will take two weeks of quiet time to begin to effectively navigate once again.

Do you think you can handle it? Most people will try to be macho and say yes, but i want honest answers.


YES!!! 100% if came to preserving the future for my boys.........but absolutely not if it came to preserving my future alone (meaning that my boys are elsewhere). If someone came and threatened bc they were hungry and I had food, I would give them something to eat. Same thing if they needed water or just shelter. But should someone threaten the lives of my sons, the hell unleashed as only a mother could unleash it would be let loose on that person's arse!!!

I think everyone who has replied should go and read the book "On Killing" and then revisit this subject. It would be interesting to see how their attitudes change. I'll admit that I have never read it but, I am well aware of it and the subject matter it discusses. It's been on my to "to read" list for far too long and I will go and buy it tomorrow. Who on here has read it?

Originally posted by THE-LURKER
I think everyone who has replied should go and read the book "On Killing" and then revisit this subject.

You mean the book by the soldier? I just read an interesting synopsis review of it here: somethingincredible.blogspot.com...

I am not sure I buy into the theory at all. I mean maybe during war, war can be abstract and involve a lot of innocents. But any form of killing? Nahhh. Look at Rwanda, how many did they butcher for the heck of it? By hand typically with a machete? 800,000 in a few days? Old people, women, children, and the killers were NOT trained soldiers. They killed their neighbors, coworkers, even their own wives and children.

It does not fit with the theory in that book at all.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Sonya610]

I've been in only one situation where I almost had to kill another person. This old guy went crazy on my brother who was unarmed, and threatened to cut his tongue out with a big -ss hunting knife that he pulled from his belt sheath.

Long story short, he unsheathed the knife and started for my brother. We were in my brother's business, and I was hanging out behind the counter where he kept his Beretta. There wasn't time to reach the guy before he stabbed him, so I pulled out the gun and told the guy to drop his knife, or I'd drop him. To my surprise he seemd to honestly have to consider his options.

I told him he had three seconds, then I was going to put a bullet in his head. Then I pulled the hammer back to show him that I was serious. At that point, he dropped the knife. I have to admit, I was relieved. I didn't want to kill the old guy, but I wasn't going to let him harm my brother either.

In the span of those three seconds, you couldn't imagine the stupid # that went through my mind! I had no problem killing him, but I was wondering how I'd explain to my boss what I was doing in jail the next day on murder charges, and would the bullet pass through the guys head and shatter the plate glass window, and would my brother expect me to pay for the damages. LOL

reply to post by Sonya610
[more

Yes that is the book. As for Rwanda it is my belief that you get to point with killing that if done enough it becomes automatic. I would say the number of kills per person varies. Killing a 100 is no different than killing a 1000.After awhile the killing blends together.

I really have no idea how I would react in the aftermath of being forced to kill someone.

I see a lot of people here who think they could deal with the 'justifiable' killing of an enemy who directly threatens their lives or the lives of their loved ones. I think they are right -- most of us would immediately react in those situations and remove the threat. I like to think that I would too, though I hope that I am never tested.

But in a survival situation it really goes beyond a violent threat - could you kill to ensure you and your family had enough food? Or warmth?
That is still a matter of life a death, but a more removed threat....and I think that is a harder question.

I know that I would not be able to live with myself if I watch the people I love starve to death - but to kill another in cold blood to ensure they survive -- I think that would eat me up (sorry, I am having a terrible pun day today).

Cant imagine I would be terribly broken up over killing someone that posed a threat. Im no cold hearted killer, but if its me or you, it aint gonna be me. Honestly, I have more compassion for a moose I killed over most people who would pose a threat. Just because its a human life, doesnt mean its a better life. The animals I hunt and eat live in peace, and leave me alone for the most part. Someone that goes out of their way to cause me harm and take my life? I have more respect and compassion for the rabbit trying to eat my carrots.

reply to post by Sonya610


I pray you never have to find that out.

What I believe you are talking about is the difference between sociopaths vs. the reaction in normal, grounded human beings.

cheers

I haven't killed anyone, but I have shot burglars. I felt no guilt even for the one who nearly died. I highly doubt killing someone would be much worse for me. If it was me or them, Ill do whatever I have to in order to keep going, This includes murder, theft, etc.

Some are probably thinking "OMG HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! MURDER!!!!"

That's just how iv always been. Do whatever it takes to get things done, never accept defeat no matter the cost. Iv been called psycho, sociopath etc.. Im happy to be the way i am I cant imagine being some schmuck who would sit there cowering in the corner while all his supplies were being taken, or his wife was starving, being raped, or killed.

Overall... Im the type of person who would do anything for myself and the people I care about.. But wouldn't have a second thought about destroying or taking a strangers life to keep us alive and healthy. Take that however you want to.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Raverous]

Originally posted by dooper
I'm curious. Would you be willing to tell me why you were asking this question?

Most of our soldiers that come back with problems is because there is no real decompression time. They want to get back home as quick as they can, and they don't realize the threat that poses to both them and even their families.

An intuitive, knowing commander would take his unit out far from any point of any other inhabitants, and would take away all cell phones, radios, and reading material.

This would enable a whole lot of quiet time where each man would be forced to face what he's just experienced, sort out his feelings, straighten up the tangled chaos that over the past few months has piled up and not been dealt with. They should be encouraged to talk.

t's real easy to be alone. Even in a crowd.

Two weeks. Nothing to do but talk, eat, relax, think, reflect, and assimilate.

Then, when the men get home, they benefit, and their families benefit.

And over time, these events will gradually shift toward the back of the memory, as other memories take their place. But it will take two weeks of quiet time to begin to effectively navigate once again.

Good post, the British Army has implimented something along those lines for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, although it is more of an R & R break the soldiers don't go home for at least two weeks. The time spent is usually in socialising, drinking and watersports. Not so sure about the hands-on approach for soldiers in a meditational outlook deal. It's more of a 'let the guys wind down and let off the steam in their own way.'
This of course can mean massive punch-ups in the various bars of Agia Napa but that's just the way it goes sometimes!

Originally posted by argentusWhat I believe you are talking about is the difference between sociopaths vs. the reaction in normal, grounded human beings.

Yes, but I believe there are a LOT more sociopaths in society than most realize (it is a sliding scale, not on or off). If one has some of those traits they are less likely to get all warm and fuzzy when ANOTHER proves dangerous, we expect the absolute worst.

Many people would not feel all that torn up over killing a vicious dog for example, cause its just an animal. I would be the opposite. I really like animals, and I would give them chances and try to manipulate their behavior without violence and hope I could avoid hurting them. With dangerous people (law permitting)? Nope.